Delhi High Court

Mr. Manjit Singh vs Mr. Alex C. Joseph on 8 October, 2009

Author: Manmohan Singh

*          HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

     +     CCP No. 15/2008 in CS (OS) No. 1159/2003

           Reserved on: 23rd September, 2009
%
           Decided on: 8th October, 2009

Mr. Manjit Singh                                  ...Petitioner
                       Through : Ms. Ferida Satarwala, Adv.

           Versus

Mr. Alex C. Joseph                             ...Respondent
                       Through : Ms. Reema Kalra, Adv.


Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                                   No

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                                No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                           No
   in the Digest?

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the

petitioner under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Brief facts are that the suit above-mentioned was filed by

the petitioner for the eviction of the respondent from the ground floor of

property no. 7, Jor Bagh, New Delhi - 110003 (hereinafter referred to as

the „suit premises‟). On 23 May, 2007 this court passed an order

disposing of the suit as no matter was left for adjudication, in view of the

factum of the respondent‟s undertaking dated 8 November, 2006 to

vacate the suit premises on or before 31 December, 2007. The petitioner

also agreed to give up the reliefs of mesne profits and damages if the

respondent acted as per his undertaking. On the same date, the

respondent paid Rs. 3,30,000/- in cash to the petitioner as occupation

and use charges for April-May, 2007. For the arrears of Rs. 1,50,000/-,

the petitioner agreed to accept Rs. 75,000/- as full and final settlement of

all of the respondent‟s dues. The respondent then stated that he would

pay the amount of Rs. 75,000/- "alongwith use and occupation charges

which are payable for the month of June, 2007." This undertaking of the

respondent was also accepted by the petitioner. On these terms, the suit

was decreed.

3. The petitioner filed the present petition on 19 January, 2008

on the ground that the respondent has not handed over vacant and

peaceful possession as per his undertaking dated 8 November, 2006 and

court order dated 23 May, 2007, thereby willfully disobeying and

violating the same. The account of both parties as to the occurrence of

events is dissimilar, to say the least. As per the petitioner, on 31

December, 2007 the keys of the suit premises were handed over to him

at 10 P.M. with the knowledge that the respondent still had some of his

belongings in the suit premises and would get the same emptied out

through his representative/helper. The next day, the representative

appeared, took the keys which the petitioner handed over in good faith,

and refused to return the same till the petitioner handed over a signed no

dues and no damages certificate. The petitioner could not do so as the

respondent had yet to pay the due water and electricity bills agreed to be

paid by him in the order as well as the undertaking. The petitioner sent

letters dated 18 October, 2007, 15 November, 2007 and 17 December,

2007 reminding the respondent to pay the dues. A notice was also sent

on 5 January, 2008 to the respondent‟s advocate stating that the court‟s

order dated 23 May, 2007 should be complied with. Further, it has been

alleged that willful damage has been caused to the suit premises, as the

damage to the ceiling is on the face of it way beyond normal wear and

tear.

4. In his reply, the respondent has stated that he vacated the

suit premises on 31 December, 2007. However, to pay the due bills, use

and occupation charges he required a copy of the bills. The respondent

then did not hear from the petitioner for three months thereafter, and

wrote a letter dated 5 April, 2008 asking for the electricity bill. On 10

May, 2008 the respondent received the petitioner‟s letter dated 17 April,

2008 stating that contempt charges had been filed against him. The

respondent is ready and willing to pay these charges.

5. In his rejoinder, the petitioner asserts that the

correspondence between parties proves that no peaceful possession was

given. The respondent‟s assertion that one of the keys was handed over

to his representative is wrong as it was the only key and would be

returned only once the petitioner signed the no dues certificate. The

petitioner has also brought attention to the meeting between the parties

counsel at the Delhi High Court at 10:30 A.M. on 23 January, 2008

wherein the respondent‟s counsel specifically stated that the keys of the

suit premises would not be handed over unless and until the petitioner

signed the no dues certificate.

6. I have gone through the rival contentions of both parties.

On 12 August, 2009 this court directed both parties to file affidavits as

regards the amount due towards water and electricity charges within

three weeks. The two parties have filed their affidavits.

7. In his affidavit, the respondent has stated that he was

supposed to pay and asked the petitioner to send copies of the bills for

the period of September 2007 to December 2007, which he never

received. He then wrote a letter to the NDMC on 30 July, 2009 and

received a reply on 26 August, 2009 wherein the NDMC asked for this

court‟s order dated 23 May, 2007. The respondent has submitted that he

is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 47, 189/- towards the electricity and water

bills for the period of September 2007 to December 2007. This bill is as

per Annexure E of the contempt petition, which is the official bill of

NDMC payable till 27 December, 2007. (The actual amount after

addition is Rs. 47, 389/-)

8. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that with the

rejoinder, he had annexed the official transcript of the NDMC Demand

Collection Register for the period of April 2000 to September 2006,

wherein it is clearly shown that the last usage payment for the suit

premises was made on 26 August, 2006. Due to non-payment, surcharge

has been levied on the total payment and the total sum payable by the

respondent till 26 September, 2009 is Rs. 71, 186/-. However, in the

affidavit the petitioner has stated that the total amount due from the

respondent up to the date of vacation of premises, i.e. till 31 December,

2007 was Rs. 52,291.

9. As regards contempt, in Vijay Pandit v. GR Investment

India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, CCP No. 132/2008 in CS (OS) No. 214/2002

decided on 6th April, 2009 by this Court, it was held as follows:

"14. Exercise of power under Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is comparatively a rarity and has to be used sparingly and in the larger interest of society and for proper administration of justice. Mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a „civil contempt‟ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971. The element of willingness and intention is an indispensable requirement to take action. If two interpretations are possible as to the action of the alleged contemnor and one of such interpretations raises doubts about the wilful nature of his conduct, contempt will not be made out.

10. In the case of Perspective Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State

of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 221 at page 230 it was held as under :

"The summary jurisdiction by way of contempt must be exercised with great care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice." (Perover, J.) Contempt of Court is essentially a matter which concerns the administration of justice and the dignity and authority of judicial Tribunals. It is not a right of a party to be invoked for the redress of his grievances. It is also not a mode by which the rights of a party, adjudicated upon by a Tribunal can be enforced against another party. Moreover, if the matter, as in the present case, requires a detailed enquiry, it must be left to the Court which passed the order and which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject-matter of its own order. When the matter relates to mere infringement of an order, as between parties, it is clearly inexpedient to invoke and

exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing the order, merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weakens it."

11. It is my opinion that in the present case, two interpretations

are possible as to the action of the respondent and one of these

interpretations clearly raises doubts as to any deliberation on the

respondent‟s part to act in contempt of this court‟s orders.

12. Considering that possession of the suit premises has already

been handed over to the petitioner as recorded in this court‟s order dated

23 May, 2008 and that with the respondent‟s willingness to pay a sum of

Rs. 47, 189/-, there is a difference of about Rs. 4000/- in the amounts

stated by both petitioner and respondent till 31 December, 2007, I find

that a sum of Rs. 52,000/- be paid by the respondent to the petitioner in

full and final settlement of all electricity/water bills. The said amount

now shall be paid within four weeks from today. This court is of the